Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums

Nonoka

Supreme Elitists
  • Content Count

    5,398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Nonoka

  • Rank
    Supreme Elitist
  • Birthday 04/03/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Berlin
  • Favorite Madonna Song
    Intervention

Recent Profile Visitors

11,014 profile views
  1. MJ propaganda website You can defame the site all you want, doesn't change the fact this is a page that provides a myriad of sources to their claims, with a footnote after almost every sentence linking to official reports, court transcripts, interviews etc. These people verify every argument they put forward with factual info, something this thread is desperately lacking. But omg, it's MJ fans hosting this website (because *shock* some fans are not just mindless sheep, but people who actually bother to do research), so let's throw all of this away! Let's disqualify all of their arguments because hey, they are MJ fans, what do they know! You claimed to be informed in this topic, so shouldn't you know this yourself? 🙃 Especially since you continue talking about dozens of people "who gut hush money", when in fact, there is only one single case that was settled with money, the Chandler case. Jumping to conclusions AGAIN. How do you know he only ever touched the books "with the half naked boys"? I think I should give up asking for sources at this point. Given we are talking about an alleged paedophile who in fact did not own any piece of child pornography, not even on his computer, but instead masses of adult pornography, including in intimate locations, I suppose it's a point worth considering. But of course, when everything can be explained away by tactics, then I guess what does it count. This guy surely must have been a criminal mastermind with the amount of tactics he employed. If you ask me, a bit contradicting for a man that, two lines earlier, "could barely scrape a sentence together".
  2. Oh, you mean a post I made three weeks ago and that would take quite some dedicated digging to find? Well dear, I changed my mind. And given that I have received private messages from 2 different forum members the last couple of days/weeks, thanking me for providing factual info in this thread, I have a good incentive to go on. And slamming the website for its name is exactly what I was expecting and goes to show you did not take a look at this site at all. This site verifies every argument they put forward with multiple sources, examines every claim meticulously, but of course, let's throw it in the bin and defame it because of its *shock* website name. I am very well aware grooming is a common method of paedophiles. It's just a slight bit counterintuitive when the alleged victims themselves stated that no grooming ever took place, which is exactly the reason why this grooming claim, which the prosecution tried to pursue as well, stood no chance in court. Whoops. I will not respond to your other question as I fail to see how chaotic, unorderly rooms are an indication for anything else expect for a chaotic and unorderly person. Or was that a side effect of his pedophilia too? Fine if you don't care to go through all this again and you have it all in the back of your head anyway. But then maybe deal with other people having different opinions and not throw personal insults at them? Because yes, alleging that I, or anyone else in this thread, are actually okay with any proven case of child abuse and any convicted predator, is highly defaming.
  3. At this point I'm believing you must be kidding. Since you talked so confidently about his profile matching a pedophile, you surely are aware it is not so typical for a raging pedophile to own these masses of adult heterosexual porn and in turns, no child pornography at all. But that doesn't matter to the theory, does it? Of course, all of this must have been for grooming purposes now. Don't agree? Well then you're a paedo apologist! (Seriously, this is getting boring) Again, who is speculating without any basis and who is sticking to the facts?
  4. Where are the "mountains" of those "dubious barely legal" photo books of young men? Where do you take these claims from? And how are these his 'predilections' when his book collection contained over 10,000 titles? (Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8?guccounter=1) And of course, there we go again. It just can't be he owned adult heterosexual porn because it would actually *shock* indicate he had healthy sexual interests, no it must have been a tactic again. Suggesting anything else is, of course, paedo apologism. (Isn't this getting tired at this point? Think of sth more creative) Anyway, let me introduce the "few copies" of his apparent tactic: So all of this was only a tactic I see. Makes sense.
  5. Oh ffs. This has been gone through in this very thread. Those descriptions made by the District Attorney are inaccurate, which is why not a single one of these books made it into the trial as evidence for Jackson's supposed pedophilia. There were no sexual deciptions of children, not to mention all of these books are commercially available. Just as an example, the first one, Boys Will Be Boys that apparently contains "boys in full frontal nudity" is in fact inscribed in the US Library of Congress, can be bought on freaking Amazon and the supposed nudity is in fact pics of children swimming in a pool. See here: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/27/has-child-pornography-ever-been-found-in-michael-jacksons-possession/ There was no child pornography found. What was found in reality however, including in Jackson's nightstand, was this type of pornography: So try again.
  6. Which side is speculating here? Proven fact: "All of the porn found in Jackson's home was of adult heterosexual nature". Reply in this thread: "He probably used it to groom the kids" Proven fact: "The guys now making allegations were telling very different things under oath". Reply in this thread: "They were maybe being threatened by MJ's lawyers" Proven fact: "The investigations in Jackson's lifetime did not produce any evidence" Reply in this thread: "There was a money settlement, so there must have been damning evidence" Etc. etc. But let's just defame the people who point out these things as siding with a child rapist / being apologists / groomed by fandom etc. (pick one) That way, any argument can simply be disqualified. Hooray! End.
  7. No, you're just being groomed by your fandom, don't talk about this. Let's also ignore the fact that the supposed victim was shopping for book rights about a tell-all MJ story and only went ahead with his claims after being rejected everywhere. And of course, once he did go ahead, the claims came with a 1,5 billion $ lawsuit against two of Jackson's former production companies. Receipts: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/#30f3667a640f https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/the-wade-robson-allegations-ebook-format-v2-0.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgSbSotJgUY If this documentary is so truthful like some have claimed here (even though nobody here has actually seen it yet), I wonder why it chooses not to mention any of these aspects? #groomedbyMJ
  8. Please. It's cool you (or the Guardian) can apparently look into my head and tell me how I think, but unfortunately your assesment is wrong. If anyone wants to know my logic, it's the simple equation of weird, off-putting and even suspicious behavior ≠ automatical guilt. That's why we have a court & justice system that looks into these things, investigates the person and, if necessary, puts him on a trial (Something that has never happened with Weinstein, Singer, Saville etc. before anyone comes with that shtick again) And not only has this been done thoroughly without a result, past investigations have revealed accusers to have seedy and dubious motives - and in this case, the voice in my head tells me I should maybe think twice before taking allegations at face value and running with them. But please continue telling me what I think
  9. I asked this a couple of weeks back and the (reluctant) consensus was that there is in fact not much there can be done, which leaves us at the same point we started. This discussion is turning in circles and tbh it's getting tired. Thank you @Kurt420 for your rational arguments.
  10. Thanks for your informative post! That's certainly a breath of fresh air in here. You are completely right, it would be wrong to call it active surveillance. Assistance to the investigations, just like you said, is the more accurate wording and also the wording that the FBI itself uses on their homepage. Nonetheless, it's worth looking into their reports as they give a good picture of how large the investigations were and how meticulously they went into details. It's been some time I last read into them, but I do remember these reports amounting to around 300 pages, so it goes to show that indeed no stone was left unturned by the DA to find something compromising. It's no 'absolute' proof (nothing is), but going through the reports, it's obvious they speak a certain language and this language is not in favour of the allegations. But of course, all of this is just crap as we now know (by a random documentary reviewer on the Internet) that all the authorities were just fooled by Jackson anyway. It can be so easy to explain things away like that!
  11. Tbh the twisting of words and slamming other people for pointing out facts is more exhausting. If you can't deal with responses and arguments that don't fit your expectations, maybe not engage in a conversation then?
  12. @karbatal Wrong. Clearly you haven't read many of White Heat's posts, or you'd know he never agreed with (let alone defended) the sleepovers in Jackson's house. Don't put words into other people's mouths. What @White Heat has done, just like @Elysium, @Kurt420, and me, is looking into the details of the case, reading into the court papers, FBI reports etc. - you know, doing research and basing our conclusions on this research. And when you have hundreds of pages of material with hard, concrete evidence (not speculation and "what would you do" mind games) that directly contradicts the accusations against Jackson, it's absolutely fair to have a slightly different conclusion. So excuse us for not declaring Jackson a raging paedophile just because those sleepovers happened. But omg, how dare us "defending" him
  13. A little dramatic much? Everybody in this thread will give you the same answer to this. And if you would have read throgh those ‚long testaments‘ just a little, you would be aware this is not what people are ‚defending‘. It‘s about questioning the allegations that Jackson was a serial predator, and pointing out the massive counter-evidence against those claims. Pointing out that there are hundreds of documents and reports out there that tell a very different story than the accusers. But omg how dare us „defending“ Jackson!! 🙄
  14. Since some people seem to be hang up on this video, a little research (or close reading of the article) would have brought out that this interrogation was for a completely unrelated lawsuit of wrongful dismissal of staff, not for the sexual abuse allegations. In this case, this is something the timestamp of the video already gives away, since the sexual abuse case was closed in early '94 and this is two years later. It was not a police interview of any kind and the attorney was not supposed to quiz him on the allegations again. Just as a little factual context as to why he might look annoyed / dismissive / tired etc. But I guess that would disqualify the argument of "Omg he's disrespecting the case", so let's quickly bury this fact again. No?
×